NPR played the first of a two part piece on solar in Georgia. Most of the US Southeast has dragged both feet when it comes to renewable energy, except for the hydro already installed. But the economics of solar are driving changes.

First, there's the new, very large solar panel assembly plant in north Georgia which is owned by Hanwha, a South Korea company that manufactures the cells used in the panels. It's the largest solar panel factory in the Western Hemisphere.

Then there are large solar farms being installed in southern Georgia, where land is cheaper. Companies such as Facebook want a supply of renewable energy before they will move new operations into the state. And even people who refuse to take climate change seriously support solar because it will make their electricity cheaper.

They even have a nice part about a local farmer who has been practicing regenerative land management on his farm and is going to manage 'the dirt' around and under the solar panels. He's planning on establishing pasture grasses and grazing livestock on the land.

Franc's nuclear generators are getting old. That means apart from general inflation, maintenance and equipment replacement costs can only go UP.

Quote

The bulk of its fleet of 58 nuclear reactors was built in a remarkable 15-year burst of construction in the 1980s and 1990s. France has not brought on stream a new reactor for 20 years. Even if the lives of its plants were extended from 40 to 60 years, in itself an expensive proposition, 75 per cent of its nuclear generating capacity would be gone by 2050.

To keep going some years longer the really old stations require big investments, and big government subsidies

Quote

In addition to the massive investment needed for further EPRs, EDF is facing huge investment costs. France’s state auditor said it needs to spend €100bn by 2030 to maintain and operate its existing fleet, ensuring they meet tougher safety standards introduced after the Fukushima disaster and in some cases extending the lives of reactors beyond the normal 40 years. In its plan, the government offered some relief. It said it would bring in a new and potentially more favourable regulatory pricing regime after 2025 to keep prices low for consumers “while ensuring production remains economic for EDF”.

And I would bet that decommissioning costs are not taken into account.

Logged

"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!""And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

If I've understood correctly, decommissioning the 58 nuclear reactors in France will cost 300 billion euros, and probably much more than that. Remember, the decommissioning of small experimental site Brennilis was estimated to be 482 million euros in 2005, which was 20 times more than initial calculations 20 years earlier, when the reactor was taken off-line. It's almost 2020 now, and nobody knows what current estimates are, but they're probably much higher still, and Brennilis won't be decommissioned until 2038. Or so they say.

I wonder if the price quoted by Bob includes all the subsidies and provisions for future liabilities.

As far as I can tell France has never been forthcoming about the economics of their nuclear fleet. Their reactors were built for 'national security' reasons when OPEC formed and started messing with the world's oil supply. France generated a lot of their electricity with imported oil.

I've never found information about what it cost France to build their reactors nor what their operational cost is aside from that one statement I posted. What we do know is that the French nuclear industry (largely owned by the government) has been losing money for some time and, if a private company, would likely be bankrupt.

I expect that with the current low and continuing to fall cost of renewable energy we're going to see French reactors shutting down soon as they work their way through their rather small coal plant fleet.

NUSA DUA, Indonesia (Reuters) - Slowing economic growth in China is weighing on demand expectations for thermal coal in the world’s biggest market for the fuel, while global moves toward cleaner energy are compounding problems arising from a glut in supply.

Quote

Prices for benchmark premium Australian coal out of Newcastle hit their weakest since September 2016 last week at $70.78 per ton and are likely to fall further given a slowing global economy.

In top consumer China, factory activity weakened in April and May, hit hard by a bruising trade war with the United States. That accounts for some, but hardly all, of the 4.9% fall in China’s coal-fired power generation in May compared with the year before, said analyst Helen Lau at Argonaut in Hong Kong.

“Weak consumption of thermal coal is mainly because of increasing competition from hydro and other clean energy,” she said in a report.

Quote

China’s wind-generated power grew 5.6 percent in the first five months of the year, hydroelectric power grew 12.8 percent, compared with 0.2 percent growth in LNG and coal combined, according to Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA).

A prolonged period of low thermal prices may signal that the global economy is decarbonizing - that is, moving away from carbon-based fuels to renewables such as solar and wind power - at a faster rate than expected, said CBA analyst Vivek Dhar.

This may hurt Australia the most because developed countries, which can afford to pay more for the high-energy, less-polluting coal it produces, are decarbonizing at the fastest rates, Dhar said.

With all of the new capacity of renewables added, and the old capacity of coal shut down, it was only a matter of time until the amount of electricity generated by renewables overtook coal. It happened in the US in April.

In April 2019, when U.S. electricity demand is often at its lowest because of mild temperatures, renewables including hydropower accounted for 23 percent of U.S. electricity generation, while coal-fired generation accounted for 20 percent of the U.S. electricity mix. Electricity generation from coal, natural gas, and nuclear is often lowest in the spring and fall months because of maintenance amid moderate temperatures and low demand for heating and air conditioning, the EIA said, pointing at the seasonal factors for renewables overtaking coal for the first time.

However, there’s an underlying long-term trend in the U.S. electricity mix—coal generation has been dropping from its peak a decade ago. Since 2015, some 47 GW of U.S. coal-fired capacity has retired, while virtually no new coal capacity has come online, the EIA said.

It seems to me that the ultimate level of power available from solar will be higher than wind and hydro. The light falling on the Earth is divided up various ways...some to heating the air (wind), some to evaporating water (hydro), some to heating the ground, some to photosynthesis, some reflected back into space, etc. so using all of the solar constant has to be more than using part. Correct?

It seems to me that the ultimate level of power available from solar will be higher than wind and hydro. The light falling on the Earth is divided up various ways...some to heating the air (wind), some to evaporating water (hydro), some to heating the ground, some to photosynthesis, some reflected back into space, etc. so using all of the solar constant has to be more than using part. Correct?

Just dealing with electricity generation -

Solar is more time limited than wind. Solar does produce during many of our highest demand hours, but not at all once the Sun goes down. Solar is good for about 1/3rd of the time in terms of directly supplying demand. The wind blows far more hours of the day and direct use is cheaper than stored use, if the sources cost about the same. We may end up getting more of our electricity from wind than solar simply due to the availability hours.

Solar will almost certainly produce more electricity than will hydro because there's a limit on streams we can, and will be willing to, convert to generators.

On a larger scale, wind is largely a product of solar energy. We eat, thanks to solar. We don't freeze, thanks to solar. Our lives are possible due to a very large heat source conveniently parked a decent distance from our planet. Solar wins.

The Sun is the one true god of Earth. It created Earth and the life on it. The sun provides ALL of our energy, from solar energy stored in fossil fuels millions of years ago to the food we eat and the water we drink. We live our lives and organize our society by the rules the Sun set for us. The Sun does give us some free will, within the boundaries the Sun sets.

We should really take advantage of the Sun's blessings and fear the Sun's fury.

Logged

I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

The Sun is the one true god of Earth. It created Earth and the life on it. The sun provides ALL of our energy, from solar energy stored in fossil fuels millions of years ago to the food we eat and the water we drink. We live our lives and organize our society by the rules the Sun set for us. The Sun does give us some free will, within the boundaries the Sun sets.

We should really take advantage of the Sun's blessings and fear the Sun's fury.

The Sun is the one true god of Earth. It created Earth and the life on it. The sun provides ALL of our energy, from solar energy stored in fossil fuels millions of years ago to the food we eat and the water we drink. We live our lives and organize our society by the rules the Sun set for us. The Sun does give us some free will, within the boundaries the Sun sets.

We should really take advantage of the Sun's blessings and fear the Sun's fury.

We don’t get nuclear energy from the sun, nor geothermal.

Not directly the way we do solar, but if you read Archmid's post carefully, one can interpret it to say that the Earth itself was created by the sun, which would of course include all the elements on earth and of course the heat within it.

magnamentis

the elements were created in super and hypernovas and the planet ultimately was built from said elements through gravitation.

details like life and conditions, including climate are subject to many many details like the moon as a stabilizer, jupiter as a gate-keeper, distance and kind of the sun itself etc. etc.

so even the sun is not a god but only the largest object built from the same nebula ultimately created through the death of ancient stars, mostly much larger and short-lived as compared to our relatively small g-class sun, g like good/gut, easy to remember.

since such astrophysical things are very well documented and researched one should better read up things a bit before babbling away.

who is the biggest man-made killing factor on planet earth?

it are religious wars, conflicts and rituals and that for thousands of years back, hence to make anything and anyone god or godlike is, in case of success, the root to a new wave of killings.

mostly religious leaders simply are/were scamsters who exploited the stupid masses and/or executed power over them in the name of god.

in short, the sun is not a god and it's not wise to take that path only to sound like being a good person. the real good people are those who tell the truth, stick to the truth and do their best to live what they preach/believe.

all other are hypocrites, pharisees, seeking benefits and reputation and they are all the same bad, no matter in which field they play their games.

1) If climate change was not a problem the US would be facing large costs for new electricity generation anyway. Most of our existing coal and nuclear plants are aging out and would be closed by 2040 simply because they would be too expensive to operate. This is a lot of money that needs to go into the calculation. New wind and solar are massively cheaper than new coal and nuclear. By installing renewables rather than replacing steam plants we save huge amounts of money that we would otherwise have to spend.

2) According to Epstein's 2012 study the US was spending between $140 billion and $242 billion annually dealing with health problems caused by coal. Add more for health problems caused by oil.

WoodMac states that it would cost $225 billion to $450 billion per year to transition from a heavily fossil fuel grid to a renewable grid over an 11 to 20 year period. Take out the billions saved by replacing worn out plants with renewables and the billions saved on health costs of fossil fuels and the actual cost would be very significantly lower in terms of new spending.

The city of Los Angeles is reviewing a rather astounding proposal for new solar...

Quote

If approved, the city will enter into a 25-year power purchase agreement for 400 MW AC/530 MW DC of solar electricity at a price of 1.997 cents per kWh — the lowest price yet for solar power in the US. Adding a 100 MW/200 MWh battery will cost an additional 1.3 cents per kWh. The project includes the option to add 50 MW/200 MWh of energy storage for 0.665 cents per kWh more.

Two cents per kWh for direct from farm solar and about 3.3 cents for solar stored to be used after the Sun sets. Twenty-five years at an apparently fixed price, no appreciation to keep up with inflation. Assuming 3% inflation the price in 2045 would be half what is would be now in time adjusted money.

https://www.woodmac.com/I think you can tell the value of the woodmac report just by looking at the bottom of woodmac's leading web page.Legacy fossil fuel industry just like The IEA.Stuck in an extractive industry mindset that distorts their thinking.

The city of Los Angeles is reviewing a rather astounding proposal for new solar...

Quote

If approved, the city will enter into a 25-year power purchase agreement for 400 MW AC/530 MW DC of solar electricity at a price of 1.997 cents per kWh — the lowest price yet for solar power in the US. Adding a 100 MW/200 MWh battery will cost an additional 1.3 cents per kWh. The project includes the option to add 50 MW/200 MWh of energy storage for 0.665 cents per kWh more.

Two cents per kWh for direct from farm solar and about 3.3 cents for solar stored to be used after the Sun sets. Twenty-five years at an apparently fixed price, no appreciation to keep up with inflation. Assuming 3% inflation the price in 2045 would be half what is would be now in time adjusted money.

If it's from a reliable, profitable company that will be in business 25 years from now I'd have no qualms about it, as long as the monthly payments started with the first delivery - and ended 25 years later when the contract had been fulfilled.

Have you seen Tesla's stock prices? They were talking about a $420 buyout, then when I left the internet this February they were ~$320. Now they're ~$220.Nothing I'd invest in, and I'd hope nothing that one of my favorite municipalities would jump into until the company has had at least a profitable year or two.Terry

I'm not seeing much risk. If the solar company fails the company would go into bankruptcy and another company would buy out the assets. Given that utility solar prices are dropping to the two cent level I doubt LA would find itself paying more.

LA would be committed to paying 2 cents for electricity delivered under the PPA. They wouldn't be required to pay anything for electricity not delivered. ---

Tesla's stock price was probably too high at it's record high of $387. $420 was just a suggestion of what might be paid to take the company private. The price offered to those who did not want to own part of a private company. We've now come through a period during which Tesla's price has been beaten down by a constant stream of attacks on Tesla and Musk. Tesla's current price of $223 is probably too low but the price is on the increase.

No one knows the future. Some people think Tesla is an extraordinary company on track to become a very large success. They are willing to pay a premium for the stock. A string of hit pieces can dampen that optimism and cause people to lower their estimation of future success.

Keep an eye on Tesla stock for the rest of the year. There's a good chance Tesla will show a Q2 profit, at worst a small loss. The company is on track to start producing cars in Shanghai during Q3 with meaningful numbers being produced in late Q4. The Model Y and pickup are probably going to be introduced this year with production starting next year. There may be some TY production this year. The anti-Tesla talking points will have been squashed by reality.

With profitable quarters, a new 500,000 car per year factory in operation, and new products introduced expect Tesla stock prices to move toward new record highs.

Bob$352.00 to close at $223.46 in the first 6 months of this year. And that in a rising market!

Some of this no doubt was the board cashing out, some due to the "C" level execs fleeing to greener pastures in liew of waiting around for their stock options, and some has been a steady drip of bad reports from around the world on the quality and service issues (FUD)?

I think I had some long side investment through Fidelity, but they recently dumped the stock so I'm probably not invested either way at this time.Terry

Bob$352.00 to close at $223.46 in the first 6 months of this year. And that in a rising market!

Some of this no doubt was the board cashing out, some due to the "C" level execs fleeing to greener pastures in liew of waiting around for their stock options, and some has been a steady drip of bad reports from around the world on the quality and service issues (FUD)?

I think I had some long side investment through Fidelity, but they recently dumped the stock so I'm probably not invested either way at this time.Terry

The $352 high was hit two years ago. June 2017. Two board members have sold some stock. At least one of them is nearing the end of his term on the board.

I'm not sure executive turnover at Tesla has been unusually high for a tech company. I've seen no numbers but what I have read is that there is a lot of movement from company to company in the tech world. A few years at Tesla or another successful company allows one to secure a more advanced position at another company.

Tesla had some 'fit and finish' problems earlier on. Recent reports find that Tesla now has those problems behind them and their cars are as well finished as others in the industry.

And Tesla has had trouble creating service centers as fast as they've expanded the areas where their customers live. Someone who lives hundreds of miles from the nearest Tesla service center can buy a Tesla and then, if they have a problem, find there's no service center minutes from their house. Tesla is working on this problem by creating 'mobile service centers'. Technicians who drive to where the car with a problem lives and fix it there as long as the problem is not major. For something like a battery pack swap or major body work repair the car would have to be hauled to a 'brick and mortar' service center. The mobile services can fix most problems, even minor body damage.

Interestingly, Tesla cars now contact the service center on their own if something starts malfunctioning in the car. Techs arrive knowing what the problem is and with the parts they need in their Model X rolling repair shop.

The reports of earlier fit and finish problems and sometimes difficulty in getting repairs is not disinformation (FUD). But failing to cease claiming a problem after the problem is fixed is FUD. When you hear about small places where paint is a bit thin frequently but hear very little about the three Tesla models being ranked as the three safest cars produced then you have to question the objectivity of many of those reporting.

Cracking the two-cent-mark as a global standard for PV appears within sight as projects in the U.S. and Brazil have been signed below that threshold. Just two years ago the industry celebrated sub-three-cent bids in the MENA region. Prices have come down so quickly, however, the new records are another third cheaper.

Quote

The replacement of feed-in tariff incentive programs with competitive reverse auction tenders around the world have dramatically reduced the price of solar power. French multinational Engie’s bid to make history in 2017, with a Saudi tender bid of $0.0178/kWh, was undone by the kingdom’s Renewable Energy Project Development Office, which instead opted for a significantly more expensive price of SAR0.08872/kWh ($0.0236/kWh) tendered by local player ACWA.

When the first projects passed the $0.03/kWh benchmark in the Middle East and North Africa region in 2017, the industry watched in awe. Just two years later, the solar world is watching prices fall below the $0.02/kWh mark.

I wonder how much of the price decrease comes from depression of wages.

Labor is a small fraction of both solar panel manufacturing and solar farm construction. Panel manufacturing is highly automated. Building solar farms doesn't require that much labor any longer with the posts installed by machines and panel mounting largely 'clip on and plug in'.

If anything labor costs have likely risen, at least in China and the US. China dealing more and more with labor demanding higher wages as China's labor force ages and shrinks. The US has very low unemployment at the moment so there are not likely to be ways to squeeze workers.

As of a few days ago US poly solar panel costs were down to $0.214/watt average and lowest prices were $0.20/watt. Mono high efficiency solar panels were $0.272/watt average and $0.24/watt lowest. Inverter prices are also dropping.

The $352 high was hit two years ago. June 2017.Two board members have sold some stock?

You might wish to check this years high on Jan. 16 2019 of $352.00Down from the YTD high of $386.46 set last July 18 2019

I fear much of the ensuing data you proffered is as far offPlease check less biased sourcesTerry

We've sure got a mishmash of numbers, Terry.

I'm using Google's chart of daily closing prices and I just double checked against Yahoo's database. The historical high close was $383.45 on 06/23/17 according to their chart. When you posted "$352 high" I thought you were talking about the all time high and knew the all time high was a couple of years back. I checked my spreadsheet for the actual date and didn't pay attention to the price.

$352 is a price peak during the day. On Jan 16 2019 Tesla closed at $346. I use daily closing prices for my records, not during day peaks. Small difference.

Did you notice your "$386.46 set last July 18 2019"? That's very clairvoyant of you.... ;o)

$386.99 was a daily peak reached on Jun 23, 2017. The highest midday price in July 2017 was $371.35 on July 3.

I think we should agree that share price performance this year looks terrible and so it should be with the awful q1 results which are not easily explained away.

I don't have a problem with understanding why Q1 results were what they were. Only half as many S/X were produced and delivered as normal. Deliveries (sales) had been running from about 22k to 28k per quarter but fell to 12k. And a lot of T3s produced in Q1 were stuck in transit which meant that they wouldn't be counted as sales until Q2.

Something I haven't seen mentioned is that in Q3 and Q4 2018 more cars were delivered than produced. Some of the last two quarters' profits came from earlier production.

I think we need to quit looking only a quarters as much as we do and look at running 12 month averages. Smooth out some of the events that can drive numbers up or down for a short period and look at the larger picture.

Share prices have been driven down and the reason is easily understood. There has been a barrage of negative press about Tesla and it's replaced almost all the positive press Tesla had been getting. Two years back Tesla's stock price was 'aspirational'. Buyers saw a company with a likely extraordinary future based on the cars they were producing and the rapidity at which they were growing. Tesla cars were held up as an example of what cars should be and what future cars would be.

Then the negative press started up. Musk has been the victim of a character assassination. Tesla cars have been derided over some small flaws in their paint and some panel gaps that weren't perfect. Very little is said about the three Tesla models being the top three safest cars manufactured. Nothing much about the comparative cost to drive a mile. Nothing about Tesla batteries now exceeding 300,000 miles and still retaining well over 80% capacity.

Tesla is under attack. I'm not sure who is participating in the attack other than some stock short sellers. There certainly are others who could be involved. The oil industry, traditional car manufacturers and their dealers, the Russians who lost major income to SpaceX all come to mind. And the paid press has no reason to defend Tesla seeing how Tesla does not buy advertising. The oil industry and traditional car manufacturers spend billions upon billion each year buying advertising. I'm left with suspicions.

Rnewables are so cheap now that even states without renewable power mandates are closing coal plants early and replacing them with solar and wind, not natural gas. Here's a news article about the plans in Indiana, a conservative Midwestern state (and home to our current Vice President, who is not a climate activist).

Los Angeles just announced the largest and cheapest solar+storage project in the world, but that's the golden land of dreamers and subsidies. About 1,800 miles to the right, conservative Indiana—with no renewable-portfolio standard—is making similar choices.

Renewables are so cheap, said Mike Hooper, the senior vice president of the Northern Indiana Service Company (NIPSCO), that the utility can close its coal plants early and return $4 billion to its customers over the next 30 years.

"It ends up being a really big number, somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 billion for our customers, and clearly a lot of that comes from the fact that there’s hundreds of millions of dollars in fuel every year from a marginal standpoint that you're not spending, that the customer gets the advantage of through the check they write us every month."

Quote

"We kind of made an assumption that as the results came back it would be very much similar to 2016, particularly where we sit in the world, that natural-gas generation would be the most cost-effective option," Hooper said. "And as we ran this RFP and got our results back, we were surprised to see that wind—especially early wind in service in 2020 and 2021—and then solar, on a levelized-cost-of-energy-basis, were significantly less expensive than new gas-fired generation."

Quote

Empowered by the low price of renewables, NIPSCO decided to double the number of coal plants it will retire in 2023—four instead of two—and to retire its 12 Michigan City units ahead of schedule in 2028, getting the utility out of coal in ten years.

NIPSCO could theoretically abandon coal in five years, saving even more money, Hooper added, but it needs time to develop transmission and ensure a reliable transition.

The utility scale renewable installations get a lot of attention, because they replace fossil fuel power plants. Residential applications are also important, because they reduce the amount of electricity that needs to be supplied by the utilities (and in some cases, can be fed back into the grid when generation exceeds consumption). Here's a news article about the growth of residential solar in Florida, not exactly a progressive state.

The State of Florida deployed 113 MWac of net metered, customer owned solar power across 13,705 installations last year – 68% more installations and 76% more watts than the prior year.July 1, 2019 John Weaver

Quote

The Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) has reported that cumulative customer-owned renewable energy systems installed in the state increased by 57% over the prior year’s cumulative total. The total capacity of customer sited renewable energy reached 317 MWac.

In terms of solar power alone – which pv magazine USA broke out alone in this Google Sheet, the state deployed over 13,702 systems and 113 MWac. These numbers were increase of 68% and 76%, respectively, versus 2017 deployment volumes. In total, the state now has 310 MW of customer owned, net metered, solar power in the state.

Quote

For comparison’s sake, the State of California – with nearly double population of Florida – deployed more than 1.5 GWdc of customer owned solar power in 2018. This value is more than four times greater than Florida has deployed cumulatively.

While this data doesn’t break it out, and since it takes time for large commercial machines to expand, some of this volume increase might be for “customer owned” systems that are actually owned by the large residential lease companies. This might lead to further expansion in growth numbers as we saw Sunrun break the dam by getting approved for a fixed price solar lease – not a power purchase agreement that varies based on generation – in the state in 2018. Subsequently, all major third party solar companies got their respectively solar lease contracts approved by the PSC as well.

b_lumenkraft

An increased rollout of onshore wind turbines across Europe could technically provide the continent with more than 10 times its existing electricity needs, according to a new paper.

To make their estimate, a team of German researchers took into account changing wind speeds, all the available land and, crucially, futuristic turbine designs that are already coming onto the market.

While they note that generating 100% of Europe’s power from wind would not actually be feasible due to social, economic and political constraints, the scientists say their estimate gives a “significantly higher” figure than most previous assessments of wind potential.

Their paper, published in the journal Energy, also suggests that, as technology advances, the cost of the resulting electricity will be cheaper than previous studies have estimated.

Some nations, including the UK, have struggled with political opposition to onshore wind. However, with the EU facing ambitious climate targets in the coming years, wind is expected to be the biggest contributor to the region’s power supply within less than a decade.

Wood Mackenzie published their Europe Solar PV Market Outlook 2019 towards the end of June, revealing its analysis that new solar installations across Europe will double over the next three years to reach a level of approximately 20 GW per year.

Germany is expected to remain Europe’s largest solar PV market, installing 21 GW between 2019 and 2024, while Spain will eke into a close second, installing almost 20 GW — made up mostly of utility-scale solar.

All in all, a total of seven European countries will install at least 5 GW during the 2019-2024 period, while eighteen countries are expected to install over 1 GW.

While Australia and Vietnam have been progressively expanding over 12 months, the latest tally showed the Southeast Asian country had overtaken Australia for operating utility scale solar PV capacity, according to Norwegian consultancy Rystad Energy.

Building on the previous year’s record volume of new large scale PV capacity, Australia continued to expand its portfolio of commissioned projects. According to Rystad’s data, the nation’s operating capacity rose from less than 600 MW to 2.7 GW over 12 months. However, that performance was put in the shade as the Vietnamese market skyrocketed on the back of June installation figures, from less than 10 MW of operational generation capacity in June 2018 to more than 4 GW – a 400-fold increase.

People constantly underestimate how quickly solar can be deployed. And now that it's cheaper than an operating coal plant (and almost as cheap as operating natural gas), we're going to be seeing many more stories like the one from Vietnam.

A 100% renewable grid isn’t just feasible, it’s in the works in EuropeEurope will be 90% renewable powered in two decades, experts say.

Quote

Jun 21, 2019, 8:00 amThe myth that a very high level of renewables can’t be integrated into the electric grid is being demolished by the clean tech and battery storage revolution.

“By 2040, renewables make up 90% of the electricity mix in Europe, with wind and solar accounting for 80%,” predict the experts at Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) in their annual energy outlook released this week.

“Cheap renewable energy and batteries fundamentally reshape the electricity system,” explains BNEF. Since 2010, wind power globally has dropped 49% in cost. Both solar and battery prices have plummeted 85%.

In addition, many large population regions are at 100% (or higher). As a September 2018 international study documented, these include Germany’s Mecklenburg-Vorpommern region in the Northeast and the Schleswig-Hostein region north of Hamburg, New Zealand’s South Island, and Denmark’s Samsø island. In Canada, both Quebec and British Columbia are at nearly 100% renewable power. ...

I don't want to be a pain in the ass. But if 90 % of electricity consumption is renewable by 2040. And electricity is 10% of total energy consumption. Than even with a small growth rate of 2% a year. The "rest" will still be bigger as what it is today. Or do i see this wrong ?